Space between has to big enough and no bigger.

Space between has to big enough and no bigger.

Cadence represents a predictable rhythm. The predictability of cadence is crucial for Agile teams to build trust. Trust is built between the team and the organization and  amongst the team members themselves by meeting commitments over and over and over. The power of cadence is important to the team’s well being, therefore the choice of cadence is often debated in new teams. Many young teams make the mistake of choosing a slower (longer) cadence for many reasons. The most often cited reasons I have found are:

  1. The team has not adopted or adapted their development process to the concept of delivering working functionality in a single sprint. When a team leverages a waterfall or remnants of a waterfall method, work passes from phase to phase at sprint boundaries. For example, it passes from coding to testing. Longer time boxes feel appropriate to the team so they can get analysis, design, coding, testing and implementation done before the next sprint. The problem is that they are trying to “agilefy” a non-Agile process, which rarely works well.
  2. New Agile teams tend to lack confidence in their capabilities. Capabilities that teams need to sort out include both learning the techniques of Agile and abilities of the team members. Teams convince themselves that a longer sprint will provide a bit of padding that will accommodate the learning process. The problem with adding padding is twofold. The first is that time tend to fill the available time (Parkinson’s Law) and secondly lengthening the sprint delays retrospectives. Retrospectives provide a team the platform needed to identify issues and make changes which leads to improved capabilities.
  3. Large stories that can’t be completed in a single sprint are often noted as reason to adopt longer duration sprints and slower cadence. This is generally a reflection of improper backlog grooming. More mature Agile teams typically adopt a rule of thumb help guide the breakdown of stories. Examples include maximum size limits (e.g. 8 story points, 7 quick function points) or duration limits (a story must be able to be completed in 3 days).
  4. Planning sessions take too long, eating into development time of the sprint. Similar to the large stories, overly long planning sessions are typically a reflection of either poor backlog grooming or trying to plan and commit to more than can be done within the sprint time box. Teams often change the length of a sprint rather than doing better grooming or taking less work. Often even when the sprint duration is expanded the problem of overly long planning sessions returns as more stories are taken and worsens as the team gets bored with planning.

Teams often think that they can solve process problems by lengthening the duration of their sprints, which slows their cadence. Typically a better solution is to make sure they are practicing Agile techniques rather than trying to “agilefy” a waterfall method or doing a better job grooming stories. A faster cadence is generally better if for no other reason than the team will get to review their approach faster by doing retrospectives!

Advertisements